Post-Grant Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal ... · Deskbook on Internal...

Post-GrantProceedings Before

the Patent Trialand Appeal Board

PLI's Complete Treatise Library (standard page size).fm Page i Wednesday, September 5, 2018 3:57 PM

PLI’S COMPLETE LIBRARY OF TREATISE TITLES

ART LAWArt Law: The Guide for Collectors, Investors, Dealers & Artists

BANKING & COMMERCIAL LAWAsset-Based Lending: A Practical Guide to Secured FinancingConsumer Financial Services Answer BookEquipment Leasing–Leveraged LeasingFinancial Institutions Answer Book: Law, Governance, ComplianceHillman on Commercial Loan DocumentationHillman on Documenting Secured Transactions: Effective Drafting and LitigationMaritime Law Answer Book

BANKRUPTCY LAWBankruptcy DeskbookPersonal Bankruptcy Answer Book

BUSINESS, CORPORATE & SECURITIES LAWAccountants’ LiabilityAnti-Money Laundering: A Practical Guide to Law and ComplianceAntitrust Law Answer BookBroker-Dealer RegulationConducting Due Diligence in a Securities OfferingCorporate Compliance Answer BookCorporate Legal Departments: Practicing Law in a CorporationCorporate Political Activities DeskbookCorporate Whistleblowing in the Sarbanes-Oxley/Dodd-Frank EraCovered Bonds HandbookCybersecurity: A Practical Guide to the Law of Cyber RiskDerivatives Deskbook: Close-Out Netting, Risk Mitigation, LitigationDeskbook on Internal Investigations, Corporate Compliance, and White Collar IssuesDirectors’ and Officers’ Liability: Current Law, Recent Developments, Emerging IssuesDoing Business Under the Foreign Corrupt Practices ActEPA Compliance and Enforcement Answer BookExempt and Hybrid Securities OfferingsFashion Law and Business: Brands & RetailersFinancial Product Fundamentals: Law, Business, ComplianceFinancial Services Mediation Answer BookFinancial Services Regulation DeskbookFinancially Distressed Companies Answer BookGlobal Business Fraud and the Law: Preventing and Remedying Fraud and CorruptionHedge Fund RegulationInitial Public Offerings: A Practical Guide to Going PublicInsider Trading Law and Compliance Answer BookInsurance and Investment Management M&A DeskbookInternational Corporate Practice: A Practitioner’s Guide to Global SuccessInvestment Adviser Regulation: A Step-by-Step Guide to Compliance and the LawLegal Guide to the Business of MarijuanaLife at the Center: Reflections on Fifty Years of Securities RegulationMergers, Acquisitions and Tender Offers: Law and StrategiesMutual Funds and Exchange Traded Funds RegulationOutsourcing: A Practical Guide to Law and BusinessPrivacy Law Answer BookPrivate Equity Funds: Formation and OperationProskauer on Privacy: A Guide to Privacy and Data Security Law in the Information AgePublic Company Deskbook: Complying with Federal Governance & Disclosure RequirementsSEC Compliance and Enforcement Answer BookSecurities Investigations: Internal, Civil and Criminal

PLI's Complete Treatise Library (standard page size).fm Page ii Wednesday, September 5, 2018 3:57 PM

Securities Law and Practice DeskbookThe Securities Law of Public FinanceSecurities Litigation: A Practitioner’s GuideSocial Media and the LawSoderquist on Corporate Law and PracticeSovereign Wealth Funds: A Legal, Tax and Economic PerspectiveA Starter Guide to Doing Business in the United StatesTechnology Transactions: A Practical Guide to Drafting and Negotiating Commercial

AgreementsVariable Annuities and Variable Life Insurance Regulation

COMMUNICATIONS LAWAdvertising and Commercial Speech: A First Amendment GuideSack on Defamation: Libel, Slander, and Related ProblemsTelecommunications Law Answer Book

EMPLOYMENT LAWEmployment Law YearbookERISA Benefits Litigation Answer BookLabor Management Law Answer Book

ESTATE PLANNING AND ELDER LAWBlattmachr on Income Taxation of Estates and TrustsEstate Planning & Chapter 14: Understanding the Special Valuation RulesInternational Tax & Estate Planning: A Practical Guide for Multinational InvestorsManning on Estate PlanningNew York Elder LawStocker on Drawing Wills and Trusts

HEALTH LAWFDA Deskbook: A Compliance and Enforcement GuideHealth Care Litigation and Risk Management Answer BookHealth Care Mergers and Acquisitions Answer BookMedical Devices Law and Regulation Answer BookPharmaceutical Compliance and Enforcement Answer Book

IMMIGRATION LAWFragomen on Immigration Fundamentals: A Guide to Law and Practice

INSURANCE LAWBusiness Liability Insurance Answer BookInsurance Regulation Answer BookReinsurance Law

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWCopyright Law: A Practitioner’s GuideFaber on Mechanics of Patent Claim DraftingFederal Circuit Yearbook: Patent Law Developments in the Federal CircuitHow to Write a Patent ApplicationIntellectual Property Law Answer BookKane on Trademark Law: A Practitioner’s GuideLikelihood of Confusion in Trademark LawPatent Claim Construction and Markman HearingsPatent Law: A Practitioner’s GuidePatent Licensing and Selling: Strategy, Negotiation, FormsPatent LitigationPharmaceutical and Biotech Patent LawPost-Grant Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSubstantial Similarity in Copyright LawTrade Secrets: A Practitioner’s Guide

PLI's Complete Treatise Library (standard page size).fm Page iii Wednesday, September 5, 2018 3:57 PM

LITIGATIONArbitrating Commercial Disputes in the United StatesClass Actions and Mass Torts Answer BookDepositions Answer BookElectronic Discovery DeskbookEssential Trial Evidence: Brought to Life by Famous Trials, Films, and FictionExpert Witness Answer BookEvidence in Negligence CasesFederal Bail and Detention HandbookHow to Handle an AppealMedical Malpractice: Discovery and TrialProduct Liability Litigation: Current Law, Strategies and Best PracticesSinclair on Federal Civil PracticeTrial Handbook

REAL ESTATE LAWCommercial Ground LeasesFriedman on Contracts and Conveyances of Real PropertyFriedman on LeasesHoltzschue on Real Estate Contracts and Closings: A Step-by-Step Guide to Buying and

Selling Real EstateNet Leases and Sale-Leasebacks

TAX LAWThe Circular 230 Deskbook: Related Penalties, Reportable Transactions, Working FormsThe Corporate Tax Practice Series: Strategies for Acquisitions, Dispositions, Spin-Offs, Joint

Ventures, Financings, Reorganizations & RestructuringsForeign Account Tax Compliance Act Answer BookInternal Revenue Service Practice and Procedure DeskbookInternational Tax & Estate Planning: A Practical Guide for Multinational InvestorsInternational Tax Controversies: A Practical GuideInternational Trade Law Answer Book: U.S. Customs Laws and RegulationsLanger on Practical International Tax PlanningThe Partnership Tax Practice Series: Planning for Domestic and Foreign Partnerships, LLCs,

Joint Ventures & Other Strategic Alliances Private Clients Legal & Tax Planning Answer BookTransfer Pricing Answer Book

GENERAL PRACTICE PAPERBACKSAnatomy of a Mediation: A Dealmaker’s Distinctive Approach to Resolving Dollar Disputes

and Other Commercial ConflictsAttorney-Client Privilege Answer BookDrafting for Corporate Finance: Concepts, Deals, and DocumentsPro Bono Service by In-House Counsel: Strategies and PerspectivesSmart Negotiating: How to Make Good Deals in the Real WorldThinking Like a Writer: A Lawyer’s Guide to Effective Writing & EditingWorking with Contracts: What Law School Doesn’t Teach You

Order now at www.pli.eduOr call (800) 260-4754 Mon.–Fri., 9 a.m.–6 p.m.

Practising Law Institute1177 Avenue of the Americas

New York, NY 10036

When ordering, please use Priority Code NWS9-X.

Post-GrantProceedings Before

the Patent Trialand Appeal Board

Oblon

Incorporating Release #9September 2018

#253493

Practising Law InstituteNew York City

#43756

This work is designed to provide practical and usefulinformation on the subject matter covered. However, it issold with the understanding that neither the publisher northe author is engaged in rendering legal, accounting, orother professional services. If legal advice or other expertassistance is required, the services of a competent profes-sional should be sought.

QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS BOOK?

If you have questions about replacement pages, billing,or shipments, or would like information on our otherproducts, please contact our customer service departmentat [email protected] or at (800) 260-4PLI.

For any other questions or suggestions about this book,contact PLI’s editorial department at: [email protected].

For general information about Practising Law Institute,please visit www.pli.edu.

Legal Editor: Keith Voelker

Copyright © 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 by Practising Law Institute.All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. No part of thispublication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in anyform by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, orotherwise, without the prior written permission of Practising Law Institute.

LCCN: 2013940671

ISBN: 978-1-4024-2020-7

About the Editors

ROBERT C. MATTSON, a partner in the firm’s Post Grant Patent andLitigation practice groups, specializes in contested proceedings beforethe United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and districtcourts of the United States. The majority of his work is for high-techand telecommunications companies, particularly companies that relyheavily on standards-based or standardized technologies.

Mr. Mattson practices extensively in post-grant proceedings at theUSPTO, including the new inter partes review trials. Most of hisclients are involved in concurrent, high-stakes litigation and seek tochallenge patents at the USPTO to supplement their overall litigationstrategy.

MICHAEL L. KIKLIS is a partner in the firm’s Post Grant Patent practicegroup focusing on post-grant counseling, patent litigation and patentprosecution. With an extensive background in computer science,Mr. Kiklis focuses his practice on software patent matters. Hefrequently handles high-stakes matters, having been involved inseveral cases in which over $1 billion was at stake.

Mr. Kiklis is a frequent lecturer and author on cutting-edge in-tellectual property issues and is also active in pro bono matters. InJuly 2008, in coordination with the International Senior LawyersProject, Mr. Kiklis taught the first-ever intellectual property class inthe LL.M. Program of the National University of Rwanda and served asthe thesis advisor to several LL.M. students.

STEPHEN (STEVE) G. KUNIN is a member of the firm’s ManagementCommittee and General Counsel and chairs the firm’s Post GrantPatent Proceedings practice group, representing clients in post-grant patent proceedings at the United States Patent and TrademarkOffice (USPTO). He also serves as an expert witness and consultanton patent policy, practice, and procedure.

With more than three decades of experience within the USPTO,Mr. Kunin was responsible for promulgating many of the rules withwhich his clients must now comply, making him a highly sought-afterpatent consultant and authority on the office’s inner workings.Companies and law firms seek out his expertise when faced withcomplex patent policy matters, such as when requesting Congress to

vii(Post-Grant, Rel. #9, 9/18)

change patent laws or the USPTO to change patent rules. He hastestified as an expert witness by report, deposition or at trial on patentexamination policy, practice, and procedure in more than fifty cases.

POST-GRANT PROCEEDINGS

viii

About the Contributors

W. TODD BAKER is chair of the firm’s Patent Interferences practicegroup and a leader in the Post Grant Patent practice group. Withsignificant experience in both patent examination and interferencecases, Mr. Baker is uniquely positioned to advise clients on post-grantUSPTO proceedings such as inter partes review (IPR) and coveredbusiness method (CBM) review proceedings, providing alternativesto traditional litigation-based patent validity challenges.

Mr. Baker is a recognized leader in the IP community, currentlyserving on the Board of Directors of the American Intellectual Prop-erty Law Association (AIPLA). Indeed, he was selected as one of thetop attorneys in the country for adversarial post-grant proceedings:

Patent interference chair W. Todd Baker is . . . extolled. “Hedevelops an intimate understanding of and appreciation for theclient’s business position”, enabling him to provide commerciallydriven advice.

SARAH BRASHEARS is a partner at Convergent Law Group LLP inMountain View, CA. Ms. Brashears has practiced law as a registeredpatent attorney for twenty years both in private practice and as in-house counsel with several startup companies in Silicon Valley,primarily in the fields of biotechnology, biomedical, and genomics.Ms. Brashears has extensive experience drafting and prosecutingpatent applications, conducting due diligence reviews, and draftingpatent validity and infringement opinions. Ms. Brashears also haswide-ranging experience drafting and negotiating license agreements,research collaboration agreements, joint development agreements,and general corporate documents and has established legal depart-ments and implemented IP management procedures in several lifescience companies. In addition to patent preparation, prosecutionand portfolio management, Ms. Brashears advises clients on litiga-tion avoidance, litigation strategies, and post-grant procedures.

DIANNA DEVORE, PH.D. is a partner at Convergent Law Group andVice President, Intellectual Property and Legal Affairs at AriosaDiagnostics, Inc. Dr. DeVore has represented life sciences andtechnology companies in intellectual property counseling, with par-ticular expertise in patent portfolio development, freedom to operate

ix(Post-Grant, Rel. #9, 9/18)

analysis, and product protection strategies. She has practiced in avariety of technology areas, including genomics, neurobiology,oncology, and prenatal testing, and has been responsible for sup-port of both preclinical and marketed drug product programs.More recently, she has been involved in coordinating complex legalactions involving inter partes reviews and concurrent district courtlitigations.

TIA D. FENTON, a skilled patent litigation lawyer, is a partner in thefirm’s Litigation and ITC Litigation practice groups. With a back-ground in chemistry, biochemistry, and genetics, she has a deepunderstanding of the sciences and technologies involved in herclients’ chemical, biochemical, biomedical, and pharmaceuticalinventions.

In addition to litigating cases in district court and before the FederalCircuit, Ms. Fenton advises her clients on litigation procedure andstrategies, litigation avoidance, and the overall protection of patentportfolios. Ms. Fenton also has experience in patent interferenceproceedings and prosecution-related matters in the chemical arts,including the revival of abandoned patent applications.

THOMAS J. FISHER is a partner in the firm’s Litigation practice group,a member of the firm’s Litigation Management Team and chair of theITC Litigation practice group. His focus is on litigating complexelectrical, mechanical, and computer software patents in federaldistrict courts, in section 337 proceedings before the InternationalTrade Commission (ITC), and in appeals to the U.S. Court of Appealsfor the Federal Circuit. Mr. Fisher has worked extensively in theelectrical and mechanical arts, including software, encryption, GPSsystems, micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS) technology, andmedical devices.

Mr. Fisher has been recognized by Intellectual Asset Management(IAM) Patent 1000 as one of the world’s leading patent practitioners,who has “both legal know-how and pure litigation skills in abun-dance.” Mr. Fisher was recognized at the national level for ITClitigation and in the D.C. metro area for litigation.

ANDREW (ANDY) T. HARRY is a wireless communications patentattorney in the firm’s Electrical Patent Prosecution group. A formerPatent Examiner at the United States Patent and Trademark Office(USPTO) in the wireless communications arts, and a former sat-ellite communications systems engineer at Booz Allen Hamilton, hebrings a deep understanding of sciences and technologies underlyinghis clients’ innovations as well as extensive hands-on industryexperience.


x

Mr. Harry prosecutes patent applications in a wide range of com-munications technologies. He is especially skilled in wireless com-munications systems, telecommunications, and related protocols.Mr. Harry also has extensive experience prosecuting patent applica-tions in the fields of consumer electronics, digital signal processing,network architectures, audio and video processing and display tech-nologies, signal compression and encoding schemes, recording med-ium formatting and construction, e-commerce, and businessmethods.

LISA M. MANDRUSIAK is an associate in the firm’s Litigation practicegroup. With a background in molecular biology and genetics, she has adeep understanding of the sciences and technologies involved inher clients’ chemical, biochemical, biomedical and pharmaceuticalinventions.

In addition to litigating cases in federal courts, Ms. Mandrusiakadvises her clients on litigation procedure and strategies, litigationavoidance, and the overall protection, exploitation, and enforcement ofglobal patent portfolios. Ms. Mandrusiak’s experience with interna-tional patent laws and prosecution enables her to better understandand communicate with foreign clients when strategizing and explain-ing U.S. patent laws.

CHRISTOPHER RICCIUTI is a patent litigation attorney in the firm’sLitigation group. He litigates matters in federal courts involving amultitude of technical areas, including global positioning systems(GPS), telecommunication systems and computer network systems.

While in law school, Mr. Ricciuti served as a judicial extern forJudge Sue L. Robinson of the U.S. District Court for the District ofDelaware. His responsibilities included drafting claim constructionsand drafting opinions touching on a variety of issues, including falseadvertising in violation of the Lanham Act.

VINCENT (VINCE) K. SHIER, PH.D., a partner in the firm’s ChemicalPatent Prosecution and Post Grant Patent practice groups, leads theteam responsible for reexaminations and reissues in the fields ofchemistry, biochemistry, biotechnology, biomedicine, genetics, molec-ular biology and pharmaceuticals.

Consistent with his role as a team leader in the Post Grant Patentpractice group, Dr. Shier actively contributes to the firm’s Patents PostGrant Law Blog, sharing insights and commentary on a complex arrayof existing and proposed post-grant options, observed trends, practicetips and news relating to patent reexamination, reissue and the newpost-grant procedures introduced by the Leahy-Smith America In-vents Act. He also speaks throughout the world to clients, attorneysand the chemical industry on reexaminations conducted concurrently

xi(Post-Grant, Rel. #9, 9/18)

About the Contributors

with litigation, obviousness, and general patent prosecution in theUnited States.

MARC K. WEINSTEIN is a Special Counsel in the Post Grant Patentpractice group focusing on post-grant proceedings, litigation, and IPcounseling. Mr. Weinstein has a broad-based and comprehensiveexperience in patent law including prosecution and opinions, as wellas licensing, litigation, and post-grant work.

Mr. Weinstein has handled all aspects of post-issuance patentproceedings at the United States Patent and Trademark Office(USPTO), including ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamina-tion, and inter partes review proceedings. He has represented a varietyof clients, including those in the technological areas of GPS andnavigation, glass composition, cellular communication, imaging anddisplays, and computer software. Mr. Weinstein has also worked onnumerous patent disputes both at the U.S. District Court and beforethe International Trade Commission. He has experience in everyaspect of litigation including preliminary investigations, draftingcomplaints, overseeing discovery, drafting motions and briefs, con-ducting and defending depositions, preparing witnesses, and arguingmotions.


xii

Table of Chapters

Chapter 1 Introduction

Chapter 2 Prefiling Considerations

Chapter 3 Petition for Inter Partes Review

Chapter 4 Patent Owner Preliminary Response

Chapter 5 Institution of Inter Partes Review andSubmission of Supplemental Evidence

Chapter 6 Discovery

Chapter 7 Sanctions

Chapter 8 Patent Owner Discovery Period, Responseand Proposed Amendments

Chapter 9 Petitioner Discovery Period, Reply andOpposition to Proposed Amendments

Chapter 10 Patent Owner Supplemental Discoveryand Reply to Opposition to ProposedAmendments

Chapter 11 Motions, Including Termination andSettlement

Chapter 12 Hearing

Chapter 13 Final Written Decision and RehearingRequests

Chapter 14 Appeals to the Federal Circuit

Chapter 15 Parallel Litigation

(Post-Grant, Rel. #9, 9/18) xiii

Chapter 16 Transitional Program for Covered BusinessMethod Patents

Chapter 17 Post-Grant Review Procedures


xiv

Table of Contents

About the Editors ...........................................................................vii

About the Contributors..................................................................ix

Table of Chapters......................................................................... xiii

Foreword ...................................................................................... xxvii

Acknowledgments ................................................................... xxxvii

Chapter 1 Introduction§ 1:1 Evolution of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act......... 1-2

§ 1:1.1 Recommendations for Patent System Reform ........... 1-2[A] The FTC Report and NRC Report ............................ 1-3[B] Patent Reform Bills .................................................... 1-4

§ 1:1.2 The Patent Reform Act of 2005 ................................ 1-4§ 1:2 Evolution of AIA’s New Post-Issuance Patent

Challenge Procedures ....................................................... 1-7§ 1:2.1 Addressing the Limitations of the Ex Parte

Reexamination Process .............................................. 1-7§ 1:2.2 Different Approaches of Proposed Legislation to

Key Issues ................................................................ 1-10[A] Threshold ................................................................ 1-10[B] Timing..................................................................... 1-10[C] Scope of Review ....................................................... 1-11[D] Estoppel ................................................................... 1-12[E] Discovery ................................................................. 1-13[F] Sanctions ................................................................. 1-13

§ 1:3 New Post-Grant Patent Procedures Under the AIA ....... 1-14§ 1:3.1 Overview of Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant

Review, and Transitional Program for CoveredBusiness Methods ......................................................1-14

[A] Threshold ................................................................ 1-14[B] Effective Date........................................................... 1-15[C] Scope ....................................................................... 1-15[D] Timing of Filing....................................................... 1-15[E] Estoppel ................................................................... 1-16

(Post-Grant, Rel. #9, 9/18) xv

[F] Procedures ............................................................... 1-16[F][1] Discovery............................................................. 1-16[F][2] Sanctions............................................................. 1-16[F][3] Evidentiary Burden.............................................. 1-17[F][4] Oral Hearing ....................................................... 1-17[F][5] Three-Judge Panels .............................................. 1-17[F][6] Preliminary Response.......................................... 1-18[F][7] Twelve- to Eighteen-Month Deadline.................. 1-18

§ 1:3.2 Example of Post-Grant Proceedings Timeline ......... 1-18§ 1:4 History and Structure of the Board ................................ 1-19

§ 1:4.1 Organizational History ............................................ 1-20[A] Names and Designations......................................... 1-20[B] Examiners/Judges..................................................... 1-20[C] Board Duties and Responsibilities ........................... 1-21

§ 1:4.2 Historical Timeline ................................................. 1-21§ 1:4.3 Current Structure of the Patent Trial and Appeal

Board (PTAB) ........................................................... 1-33§ 1:5 Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Group .... 1-33§ 1:6 PTAB Has Become the Busiest Patent Court in the

United States.................................................................. 1-34

Chapter 2 Prefiling Considerations§ 2:1 Overview........................................................................... 2-2§ 2:2 Stay of Co-Pending Litigation .......................................... 2-6

§ 2:2.1 Generally ................................................................... 2-6§ 2:2.2 Specific Considerations in a Court’s Decision to

Grant a Stay .............................................................. 2-7[A] Stage of Litigation...................................................... 2-7[B] Simplification of Issues ............................................. 2-8[C] Are Parties Competitors? ........................................... 2-9[D] Duration of Proceedings ............................................ 2-9

§ 2:2.3 Stays in International Trade CommissionProceedings .............................................................. 2-13

§ 2:2.4 Grant Rate Statistics in Specific Courts .................. 2-14§ 2:3 Statutory Estoppel .......................................................... 2-16§ 2:4 Evidence and Admissions............................................... 2-17§ 2:5 Claim Construction ....................................................... 2-18§ 2:6 Invalidity Arguments...................................................... 2-19

§ 2:6.1 Existence of Invalidity Arguments That AreNot Subject to IPR .................................................. 2-19

§ 2:6.2 Technical Complexity of Invalidity Arguments ....... 2-20§ 2:6.3 Priority Challenge in Invalidity Argument .............. 2-21

§ 2:7 Circumventing Invalidity Arguments via ClaimAmendments .................................................................. 2-21

§ 2:8 Intervening Rights and Design-Arounds ........................ 2-22


xvi

§ 2:9 Threat of Injunction....................................................... 2-23§ 2:10 Predictable Versus Unpredictable Arts............................ 2-25§ 2:11 Asymmetry of Discovery-Related Burdens...................... 2-26§ 2:12 Impact on International Trade Commission

Proceedings..................................................................... 2-27§ 2:13 Evidence Concerning Willful Infringement and

Inequitable Conduct .........................................................2-29§ 2:14 Ability of Declarants to Withstand

Cross-Examination......................................................... 2-29§ 2:15 Filing Fees and Page Limits ............................................ 2-30§ 2:16 Eleventh Amendment Immunity from Suit ................... 2-31§ 2:17 The Role of Ex Parte Reexamination Post-AIA............... 2-32§ 2:18 Prefiling Strategies Unique to Patent Owners ................ 2-34

§ 2:18.1 Preemptive Filing May Provide More PatenteeFlexibility in Amending........................................... 2-34

§ 2:18.2 The Estoppel Impact of PTAB Validity Trials .......... 2-35§ 2:18.3 Recommendations on How to Avoid the

Effect of Patentee Estoppel....................................... 2-37[A] Preemptive Model.................................................... 2-38[B] After-the-Fact Model................................................ 2-39

Chapter 3 Petition for Inter Partes Review§ 3:1 Overview........................................................................... 3-2§ 3:2 Petition Requirements ...................................................... 3-2

§ 3:2.1 Fee Calculation and Payment .................................... 3-3§ 3:2.2 Parties in Interest and Mandatory Notices................ 3-4§ 3:2.3 Claims Challenged and Grounds .............................. 3-8

[A] Standing..................................................................... 3-8[B] Identification of Challenge(s)................................... 3-11[C] Threshold Standard ................................................. 3-15[D] Service ..................................................................... 3-19[E] Other Filing Requirements and Considerations ...... 3-19[F] Claim Charts........................................................... 3-21

§ 3:3 Filing Date and Correction of Errors.............................. 3-22§ 3:3.1 Filing Date............................................................... 3-22§ 3:3.2 Threshold Requirements for Institution of Review....3-23§ 3:3.3 Correcting a Noncompliant Petition ....................... 3-24§ 3:3.4 Most Common Defects Giving Rise to

Non-Compliance ..................................................... 3-25§ 3:4 Expert Witness Testimony.............................................. 3-25§ 3:5 Most Common Mistakes in Petition Drafting ............... 3-27

§ 3:5.1 Deficient Evidentiary Declarations .......................... 3-28§ 3:5.2 “Mix and Match” Grounds of Unpatentability ....... 3-28

(Post-Grant, Rel. #9, 9/18) xvii

Table of Contents

§ 3:5.3 Lack of Coherent Claim Construction Positions .... 3-29§ 3:5.4 Redundancy in the Grounds of Unpatentability ..... 3-30§ 3:5.5 Failure to Recognize the Importance of the

Twelve-Month Window ........................................... 3-31§ 3:5.6 Improper Incorporation by Reference in Petition.......3-32

§ 3:6 Jurisdiction, Standing, and Joinder................................. 3-32

Chapter 4 Patent Owner Preliminary Response§ 4:1 Overview........................................................................... 4-1§ 4:2 Timing and Waiver ........................................................... 4-2§ 4:3 Content of a Preliminary Response.................................. 4-4

§ 4:3.1 General Rule.............................................................. 4-4§ 4:3.2 New Testimonial Evidence Exception........................ 4-5§ 4:3.3 Limited Discovery Exception ..................................... 4-6§ 4:3.4 Page Limitations ........................................................ 4-6§ 4:3.5 Examples of Acceptable Preliminary Response

Arguments ................................................................. 4-6§ 4:3.6 Other Inclusion Rules................................................ 4-8

§ 4:4 Strategic Considerations................................................... 4-9

Chapter 5 Institution of Inter Partes Review andSubmission of Supplemental Evidence

§ 5:1 Statutory Deadline ........................................................... 5-1§ 5:2 Issuance of Decision......................................................... 5-4§ 5:3 Entry of Preliminary Scheduling Order ............................ 5-6§ 5:4 Scope of Issues Decided.................................................... 5-9§ 5:5 Estoppel Effect of Decision ............................................. 5-10§ 5:6 Requests for Reconsideration.......................................... 5-10§ 5:7 Alternative Grounds of Unpatentability May Be

Deemed Redundant ........................................................ 5-11§ 5:8 Review of Decision to Institute Under the

Administrative Procedures Act ....................................... 5-12§ 5:9 Submission of Supplemental Evidence ........................... 5-14

Chapter 6 Discovery§ 6:1 Overview........................................................................... 6-2§ 6:2 Historical Perspective: Discovery in Interference

Practice ............................................................................. 6-3§ 6:3 PTAB’s Expected Narrow View of Discovery When

Defining the Scope of Relevant Materials ........................ 6-7§ 6:4 Mandatory/Routine Disclosures ..................................... 6-10

§ 6:4.1 Initial Disclosures ................................................... 6-10§ 6:4.2 Routine Discovery ................................................... 6-13


xviii

§ 6:5 Disclosure of Inconsistent Information.......................... 6-14§ 6:5.1 When to Submit Required Inconsistent

Information ............................................................. 6-15§ 6:5.2 Scope of Required Relevant Inconsistent

Information ............................................................. 6-16§ 6:6 Requests for Additional Discovery.................................. 6-18

§ 6:6.1 Requests for Additional Discovery: “In theInterests of Justice” and “Good Cause” ................... 6-18

§ 6:6.2 Initial Request for Authorization Versus FormalMotions for Additional Discovery orOther Matters.......................................................... 6-24

§ 6:6.3 Requests for Additional Discovery DuringCross-Examination................................................. 6-24

§ 6:7 Third-Party Discovery .................................................... 6-27§ 6:8 Depositions—Mechanics and Practice............................ 6-29

§ 6:8.1 General Deposition Framework............................... 6-30§ 6:8.2 Interference Deposition/Testimony Guidelines and

the BPAI’s Application of Same............................... 6-32§ 6:8.3 The BPAI’s Direct Rejection of Additional

Common Litigation Objections and Practices......... 6-34[A] “Blanket” Objections Insufficient and Waived,

Even if Subject of a Stipulation Between Parties ..... 6-35[B] Objections Not Made on the Record at the

Time of Deposition Waived, and Not“Reserved Until the Time of Trial,” DespiteStipulation Between Parties to the Contrary .......... 6-35

[C] Objections to the “Form of the Question”Additionally Improper, Since They Are NotIncluded Within the Federal Rules of Evidence ....... 6-36

[D] Objections to Questions As “Vague,” “Unclear”/“Not Clear” and “Ambiguous” LikewiseImproper in Interference Cross-Examinations,Since They Are Not Included Withinthe Federal Rules of Evidence.....................................6-36

[E] Objections That Questions “Mischaracterize”or “Misstate” Prior Testimony Improper ................. 6-37

§ 6:8.4 Best Practices for Defending and TakingCross-Examinations...................................................6-37

§ 6:8.5 Preparing Witnesses for Cross-Examination............ 6-38§ 6:8.6 Conducting Depositions in a Foreign Language ...... 6-39§ 6:8.7 Deposition of Foreign Witness ................................ 6-40

§ 6:9 Document Requests........................................................ 6-41§ 6:10 Objections, Admissibility, and Motions to Exclude........ 6-42§ 6:11 Protective Orders and Confidentiality Designations ...... 6-43§ 6:12 Need for Litigation Hold for Parties to Avoid

Spoliation and Sanctions................................................ 6-44

(Post-Grant, Rel. #9, 9/18)

Table of Contents

xix

Chapter 7 Sanctions§ 7:1 Introduction ..................................................................... 7-2§ 7:2 Sanctioning Power Under AIA ......................................... 7-2§ 7:3 Historical Perspective ....................................................... 7-4

§ 7:3.1 Legislative History of Sanctions Provision ................ 7-4[A] House Judiciary Committee Hearings ....................... 7-4[B] House and Senate Debates ........................................ 7-5

§ 7:3.2 Comparison with Past Provisions.............................. 7-6§ 7:4 PTO’s Historical Experience .......................................... 7-10

§ 7:4.1 BPAI Experience....................................................... 7-10[A] Measuring Sanctionable Behavior............................ 7-11[B] Determining Appropriate Sanctions ........................ 7-11[C] Defining a “Frivolous” Position ............................... 7-12[D] Best Practices in Seeking Sanctions......................... 7-13

§ 7:4.2 TTAB Experience..................................................... 7-13§ 7:5 Risks Associated with Various Common District

Court Litigation Tactics.................................................. 7-15§ 7:5.1 Discovery Abuses..................................................... 7-15§ 7:5.2 Depositions.............................................................. 7-17§ 7:5.3 Requests for Extensions of Time ............................. 7-18§ 7:5.4 Spoliation ................................................................ 7-19§ 7:5.5 “Off-the-Record” Communications.......................... 7-20

§ 7:6 Pursuing Sanctions......................................................... 7-20§ 7:6.1 Procedure ................................................................. 7-20§ 7:6.2 Timing..................................................................... 7-22§ 7:6.3 What Sanctions Are Available?................................ 7-22

[A] Mandated Sanctions ................................................ 7-22[B] Informal Sanctions .................................................. 7-23

§ 7:7 Appealing Sanctions ....................................................... 7-24§ 7:7.1 Rehearing................................................................. 7-24§ 7:7.2 Appeal...................................................................... 7-24

Chapter 8 Patent Owner Discovery Period, Responseand Proposed Amendments

§ 8:1 Patent Owner Discovery Period........................................ 8-1§ 8:1.1 Cross-Examination of Petitioner ’s Declarant(s) ........ 8-4§ 8:1.2 Seeking “Additional” Discovery ................................. 8-8

[A] Impermissible Uses of “Additional” Discovery.......... 8-8[B] Use of “Additional” Discovery to Explore

Secondary Indicia of Non-Obviousness ..................... 8-9[C] Use of “Additional” Discovery to Explore Real

Parties in Interest .................................................... 8-11§ 8:1.3 Discovery of Third Parties by Way of Subpoena

Issued Under the Authority of an AppropriateDistrict Court .......................................................... 8-14


xx

§ 8:2 Patent Owner Response Requirements........................... 8-15§ 8:3 Amendments to Claims and Substitute Claims ............ 8-16

§ 8:3.1 Requirements........................................................... 8-16§ 8:3.2 No Broadening Amendments .................................. 8-20§ 8:3.3 Establishing That an Amendment Is

Responsive to Ground of Patentability at Issue....... 8-20

Chapter 9 Petitioner Discovery Period, Reply andOpposition to Proposed Amendments

§ 9:1 Petitioner Discovery Period .............................................. 9-1§ 9:1.1 Routine Discovery ..................................................... 9-2§ 9:1.2 Production of Cited Exhibits ..................................... 9-2§ 9:1.3 Cross-Examination of Patent Owner ’s Declarant...... 9-2§ 9:1.4 Information That Is Inconsistent with a Position

Advanced During the Proceeding............................... 9-4§ 9:2 Petitioner ’s Reply to the Patent Owner ’s Opposition ...... 9-4§ 9:3 Petitioner ’s Opposition to the Patent Owner ’s

Proposed Amendments..................................................... 9-6

Chapter 10 Patent Owner Supplemental Discoveryand Reply to Opposition to ProposedAmendments

§ 10:1 Supplemental Patent Owner Discovery .......................... 10-1§ 10:1.1 Timing..................................................................... 10-1§ 10:1.2 Scope ....................................................................... 10-2

[A] Routine Discovery by Patent Owner........................ 10-2[B] Additional Discovery by Patent Owner.................... 10-3

§ 10:2 Patent Owner Reply to Opposition to ProposedPatents............................................................................ 10-3

§ 10:2.1 Petitioner ’s Observations on Cross-Examination.... 10-4

Chapter 11 Motions, Including Termination andSettlement

§ 11:1 In General ...................................................................... 11-2§ 11:2 Filing Motions ................................................................ 11-2

§ 11:2.1 Timing..................................................................... 11-2§ 11:2.2 Procedure for Filing Motions ................................... 11-3§ 11:2.3 Content of Motions................................................. 11-3§ 11:2.4 Opposition to Motion.............................................. 11-4§ 11:2.5 Reply to Opposition................................................. 11-5§ 11:2.6 Affidavits in Support of Motions, Oppositions, or

Replies ..................................................................... 11-5


Table of Contents

xxi

§ 11:3 Board Action on a Motion and Request for Rehearing .....11-6§ 11:4 Types of Motions............................................................ 11-6

§ 11:4.1 Motions to Terminate Based on Settlement ............ 11-6§ 11:4.2 Motions to Exclude Evidence .................................. 11-9§ 11:4.3 Motion to Seal....................................................... 11-11§ 11:4.4 Motions to Expunge .............................................. 11-13§ 11:4.5 Motions for Joinder ............................................... 11-13§ 11:4.6 Motions to File Supplemental Information........... 11-17§ 11:4.7 Motion for Judgment Based on Supplemental

Information ........................................................... 11-18§ 11:4.8 Motions for Observations on

Cross-Examination ................................................ 11-18§ 11:4.9 Motions to Compel ............................................... 11-19§ 11:4.10 Motions to Amend the Patent............................... 11-21§ 11:4.11 Motions for Additional Discovery ......................... 11-21§ 11:4.12 Motions In Limine ................................................ 11-21§ 11:4.13 Motion to Waive Page Limits ................................ 11-22§ 11:4.14 Motion for Correction of Notice of Basis for

Relief...................................................................... 11-22§ 11:4.15 Motions to Correct Petition .................................. 11-23§ 11:4.16 Motion for Paper Filing ......................................... 11-23§ 11:4.17 Motions for Admission Pro Hac Vice .................... 11-23§ 11:4.18 Motion to React to the Exclusion of

an Inventor or Co-Owner...................................... 11-24§ 11:4.19 Motions for Relief on Grounds Not

Identified in the Rules ........................................... 11-24§ 11:4.20 Motions to Expand Panel ...................................... 11-25

Chapter 12 Hearing§ 12:1 Request for a Hearing..................................................... 12-1§ 12:2 The Hearing Panel.......................................................... 12-2§ 12:3 Order of Proceeding........................................................ 12-2§ 12:4 Exhibits .......................................................................... 12-3

§ 12:4.1 Content ................................................................... 12-3§ 12:4.2 Format ..................................................................... 12-3§ 12:4.3 Numbering .............................................................. 12-4§ 12:4.4 Filing Deadlines and Other Requirements .............. 12-5

§ 12:5 Depositions Versus Live Testimony................................ 12-6§ 12:6 New Evidence and Arguments ....................................... 12-7§ 12:7 Hearing Strategy ............................................................. 12-8


xxii

Chapter 13 Final Written Decision and RehearingRequests

§ 13:1 Requirement and Definition........................................... 13-1§ 13:1.1 Timing..................................................................... 13-1§ 13:1.2 Content ................................................................... 13-2

§ 13:2 Impact: Estoppel............................................................. 13-2§ 13:2.1 Certificate ................................................................ 13-3

§ 13:3 Rehearing Requests......................................................... 13-4

Chapter 14 Appeals to the Federal Circuit§ 14:1 In General ...................................................................... 14-1§ 14:2 Filing the Notice of Appeal ............................................ 14-2§ 14:3 Standard of Review......................................................... 14-5§ 14:4 Preservation of Issues for Appeal.................................... 14-8§ 14:5 Strategic Considerations................................................. 14-9

Chapter 15 Parallel Litigation§ 15:1 Introduction ................................................................... 15-2§ 15:2 Background on PTAB Proceedings Relevant to

Concurrent Litigation..................................................... 15-3§ 15:2.1 Timing..................................................................... 15-3§ 15:2.2 Limited Discovery ................................................... 15-4§ 15:2.3 The Quality of Adjudication Under the PTAB ........ 15-4

§ 15:3 Practical Impact of the Change to Inter PartesReview on Litigation—Estoppel...................................... 15-5

§ 15:4 The New Landscape—PTAB Proceedings AsAlternatives to Litigation................................................ 15-8

§ 15:4.1 Timing—Use It or Lose It ....................................... 15-8§ 15:4.2 PTAB Proceedings in Relation to

Declaratory Judgments ............................................ 15-8§ 15:4.3 Post-Grant Proceedings in Relation to Stays ......... 15-10§ 15:4.4 The “Automatic Stay” Provision for CBMs ........... 15-13

§ 15:5 Pre-Trial Strategies........................................................ 15-15§ 15:5.1 Stay of District Court Litigation............................ 15-15

[A] Decision to Stay—Factors-Based Analysis ............. 15-15[A][1] Prejudice............................................................ 15-16[A][2] Simplification .................................................... 15-16[A][3] Timing .............................................................. 15-17[B] Pending Preliminary Injunctions ........................... 15-17[B][1] Creative Stay Tactics—Defendants: Motion to

Transfer Followed by a Motion to Stay(“Texas Two-Step”) ............................................ 15-18


Table of Contents

xxiii

[B][2] Creative Stay Tactics—Plaintiffs:Stay Calculus Relating to the ITC(“ITC End-Around”).......................................... 15-20

[B][3] Can You Appeal a Stay Determination?............ 15-21§ 15:5.2 Intervening Rights ................................................. 15-23

[A] The Substantially Identical Standard .................... 15-23[B] Types of Intervening Rights ................................... 15-26[C] Claim Construction and Intervening Rights ......... 15-27[D] Amended in Effect?................................................ 15-28

§ 15:5.3 Enhanced Claim Construction.............................. 15-29[A] Using the Proceeding As an Ongoing

Prosecution History ............................................... 15-31[B] Self-Serving Statements ......................................... 15-33[C] PTAB Claim Construction As Prosecution

History Estoppel .................................................... 15-35§ 15:5.4 Inequitable Conduct (Materiality Analysis) ........... 15-36§ 15:5.5 Willfulness............................................................. 15-37

§ 15:6 Post-Trial Strategies ...................................................... 15-39§ 15:6.1 Avoiding Injunctive Relief ..................................... 15-40

[A] Enforcement of Injunction Stayed inView of PTO Determination ................................. 15-40

§ 15:6.2 Avoiding Judgment/Impacting Invalidity ............... 15-41[A] When Inter Partes Estoppel Applies....................... 15-43[B] The Reach of the Estoppel..................................... 15-45[C] Inter Partes Patent Estoppel May Not Apply to

Prior Art Deemed “Unavailable” ........................... 15-46[D] Assignor Estoppel in PTAB Post-Grant

Proceedings ............................................................ 15-47§ 15:7 USPTO Post-Grant Patent Cancellation Trumps

Court Judgment............................................................ 15-48§ 15:7.1 First Impressions Involving Parallel PTAB/Court

Proceedings ............................................................ 15-49§ 15:8 Parallel USPTO Proceedings......................................... 15-50

§ 15:8.1 Introduction: Overview of Available USPTOAdministrative Proceedings ................................... 15-50

§ 15:8.2 PTAB Authority to Control Parallel USPTOProceedings ............................................................ 15-51

§ 15:8.3 PTAB Discretionary Control of PTABProceedings ............................................................ 15-53

§ 15:8.4 PTAB Discretionary Control of Parallel USPTOProceedings ............................................................ 15-54

§ 15:9 Conclusion ................................................................... 15-55


xxiv

Chapter 16 Transitional Program for Covered BusinessMethod Patents

§ 16:1 Introduction ................................................................... 16-1§ 16:2 Historical Background .................................................... 16-2§ 16:3 Intent.............................................................................. 16-5§ 16:4 Unique Features of the TPCBMP................................... 16-5

§ 16:4.1 Scope ....................................................................... 16-5§ 16:4.2 Timing and Sunset .................................................. 16-6§ 16:4.3 Standing .................................................................. 16-7§ 16:4.4 Requests for Stay ..................................................... 16-8§ 16:4.5 Prior Art Limitations ............................................... 16-9§ 16:4.6 Estoppel ................................................................. 16-10§ 16:4.7 Subject Matter Eligibility ....................................... 16-11

§ 16:5 Implementation: PTAB Rules for CBM........................ 16-17§ 16:6 Strategies ...................................................................... 16-20

§ 16:6.1 Patent Owner Strategy ........................................... 16-20§ 16:6.2 Petitioner Strategy ................................................. 16-20

§ 16:7 Early Cases ................................................................... 16-21

Chapter 17 Post-Grant Review Procedures§ 17:1 Introduction ................................................................... 17-1§ 17:2 Applicability of the Rules Governing Practice

Before the PTAB ............................................................. 17-3§ 17:3 Eligibility ........................................................................ 17-4§ 17:4 Window for Filing........................................................... 17-4§ 17:5 Scope of Defenses Considered ........................................ 17-5§ 17:6 Scope of Estoppel............................................................ 17-8§ 17:7 Discovery........................................................................ 17-9§ 17:8 Strategic Considerations............................................... 17-10§ 17:9 Other Provisions........................................................... 17-11

Appendix A Leahy-Smith America Invents Act .........App. A-1

Appendix B Rules of Practice Before the Boardof Patent Appeals and Interferencesin Ex Parte Appeals .................................. App. B-1

Index ................................................................................................ I-1


Table of Contents

xxv

Forewordby Hon. Gerald J. Mossinghoff& Stephen G. Kunin

In our global knowledge-based economy, technological innovationis key to the United States’ economic growth and development.Across all fields of technology, the United States is currently withoutpeer with respect to rate of innovation. That results in substan-tial part from the fact that the United States has the most effectivepatent system in the world, measured in terms of the breadth of bothits geographic and economic scope and the variety of the technologiesprotected. The attention that the U.S. patent system currentlyenjoys—in industry and academia and politically within the executivebranch and in Congress—is a direct result of the importance of theU.S. patent system to this country ’s technological, economic, andpolitical leadership.

President Lincoln said that the U.S. patent system “added the fuelof interest to the fire of genius.” As the only U.S. president whoreceived a patent, Lincoln understood how U.S. patents served welltheir constitutional purpose of promoting the “Progress of . . . usefulArts” or, in today ’s lexicon, fostering the creation and use of cutting-edge technology. The importance of an efficient and effective U.S.patent system to the high-technology industry worldwide is reflectedin many indicia, but perhaps none are more striking than the num-bers themselves. In 1981, there were 114,710 patent applicationsfiled and 71,010 U.S. patents granted. Three decades later, in 2011,there were 535,188 applications filed and 245,861 patents granted—more than a fourfold increase. But there is real concern that withthe dramatic increase in the number of patent applications filedand patents granted—and with the influx of new and unavoidablyinexperienced examiners hired to handle the workload—compromisesto patent quality may be inevitable.

It is our view that patent examiners are, as a general rule, dedi-cated and effective professionals who—in the necessarily limited timeavailable to them—do an extraordinarily good job of searching andapplying relevant prior art to the claims of the applications beingexamined. Their capability in this task has been strengthenedimmeasurably by the addition of automated search tools and globalaccess to electronic databases of technical information. By the very

(Post-Grant, Rel. #9, 9/18) xxvii

nature of the breadth of prior art—including, for example, unpublishedcommercial activity—examiners are nevertheless rarely aware of all ofthe relevant prior art or public uses or on sale bars in any given case.

Over the years, two forms of patent reexamination have beenenacted to permit any person to raise new questions of patentabilityof a claim of an issued patent. Major patent systems of the world—notably, the European and Japanese patent systems, along with others,including the British and German patent systems—all have forms ofadministrative post-grant procedures during which the validity of apatent may be challenged.

In the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), signed by PresidentObama on September 16, 2011,1 Congress enacted a chapter on post-grant review (PGR) of granted patents (including a special flavor ofPGR applicable to business method patents), and it replaced theexisting inter partes examination system with a new inter partesreview (IPR) of granted patents. The AIA itself represents the mostcomplete revision of the patent law since the Patent Act of 1952.

Concern that the U.S. patent system was not keeping up structu-rally with the domestic technological and economic environment ledto three major studies on the patent system in the early years of thiscentury:

• a 2003 study entitled “To Promote Innovations: The ProperBalance of Competition and Patent Law and Policy” by theFederal Trade Commission;

• a 2004 study by the National Research Council of the NationalAcademies on “A Patent System for the 21st Century”; and

• a 2005 study of the National Academy of Public Administrationon “U.S. Patent and Trademark Office: Transforming to Meetthe Challenges of the 21st Century.”

Each of these studies resulted in a recommendation that theCongress establish a new procedure for third parties to administra-tively challenge the validity of issued U.S. patents.

The National Research Council recommended:

Congress should seriously consider legislation creating a proce-dure for third parties to challenge patents after their issuance ina proceeding before administrative patent judges of the USPTO.The grounds for a challenge could be any of the statu-tory standards—novelty, utility, non-obviousness, disclosure, or

——————

1. Pub. L. No. 112–29 (2011) [hereinafter AIA].

xxviii


enablement—or even the case law proscription on patentingabstract ideas and natural phenomena. The time, cost, and othercharacteristics of this proceeding should make it an attractivealternative to litigation to resolve patent validity questions bothfor private disputants and for federal district courts. The courtscould more productively focus their attention on patent infringe-ment issues if they were able to refer validity questions to anOpen Review proceeding.

The Federal Trade Commission made a similar recommendation:

Because existing means for challenging questionable patents areinadequate, we recommend an administrative procedure for post-grant review and opposition that allows for meaningful chal-lenges to patent validity short of federal court litigation. To bemeaningful, the post-grant review should be allowed to addressimportant patentability issues. The review petitioner should berequired to make a suitable threshold showing. An administra-tive patent judge should preside over the proceeding, whichshould allow cross-examination and carefully circumscribed dis-covery, and which should be subject to a time limit and the use ofappropriate sanctions authority. Limitations should be estab-lished to protect against undue delay in requesting post-grantreview and against harassment through multiple petitions forreview.

The National Academy of Public Administration echoed some ofthe same sentiments:

Because of the many inherent disincentives with the existingreexamination process, few third parties have used inter partesreexamination as a vehicle for challenging patentability decisions.A post-grant review process that incorporates adversarial aspectsand addresses concerns about the existing estoppel standard couldprovide a relatively low-cost option for third parties who want tochallenge patentability decisions. Through its use, it could providemore information on issues related to patentability than is avail-able through the current system, thereby helping improve patentquality in the long term.

The Academy Panel believes that some method of post-grantreview will permit an administrative process to resolve manyissues that now go to litigation. Litigation can cost from$100,000 to $3 million or significantly more (not including anyawards a court might make). The shorter timeframe and reducedcosts of a post-grant review system should benefit patent holdersand challengers.


Foreword

xxix

At the time of enactment of the AIA, there were two types ofreexaminations:

• ex parte reexamination, established in the USPTO in 1981,2

and

• inter partes reexamination, established in the USPTO in 1999.3

Common to both reexamination systems are that (1) they areapplicable to in-force granted patents,4and (2) the grounds for reex-amination are limited to prior patents and publications. Othergrounds for invalidating a patent—e.g., prior public use, prior sales,or lack of enablement—are excluded. As of June 30, 2012, 10,755 exparte reexaminations and 1,433 inter partes reexaminations have beendocketed.

Not long after ex parte reexamination was established, it waschallenged as amounting to an unconstitutional taking of vestedproperty without due process under the Fifth Amendment and as aviolation of the Seventh Amendment. In Patlex v. Mossinghoff,5 theFederal Circuit upheld the constitutionality of the reexaminationprocess in these terms:

In serving the public purpose of the improved administration oflaw by the government, the reexamination statute was consideredto be a significant improvement in the patent system. We view thereexamination statute as of the class of “curative” statutes,designed to cure defects in an administrative system. Curativestatutes have received relatively favored treatment from thecourts even when applied retroactively.

* * *

We conclude, as did the district court, that the overriding publicpurposes Congress articulated in enacting the reexamination lawwith retroactive effect are entitled to great weight, and thatCongress did not act in an arbitrary and irrational way to achieveits desired purposes. We affirm the district court in upholding thevalidity of the retroactive statute against Gould’s challenge underthe Fifth Amendment.

* * *

——————

2. Pub. L. No. 96-517 (1981).3. Pub. L. No. 106-113 (1999).4. Inter partes reexamination is limited to patents based on applications

filed on or after November 29, 1999.5. Patlex v. Mossinghoff, 758 F.2d 594 (Fed. Cir. 1985).

xxx


The extensive jurisprudence interpreting and applying theSeventh Amendment and Article III supports our conclusion,affirming that of the district court, that Gould has not suffered aconstitutional deprivation of any rights under the Amendmentor Article by virtue of either the postponement of the exercise ofthese rights, or by interposition of reexamination.6

Any similar challenges to inter partes review or post-grant review, inour view, will be decided along the same lines as that formulated inPatlex v. Mossinghoff.

Two major issues facing Congress, and resolved by the AIA, were:

(1) if post-grant review was to be established, what grounds wouldbe applicable; and

(2) what U.S. patents would be subject to post-grant review.

Regarding the second issue, the debate centered around how manyopportunities, or “windows,” a challenger would have to initiate apost-grant review. With the “one-window” approach, a granted patentwould be subject to post-grant review only during a limited windowor period of time—e.g., one year or less—after it is granted. Under a“two-window” approach, a patent would be subject to post-grantreview during the first window and later if the validity of the patentwere to be challenged, for example, during litigation.

The one-window approach—with a nine-month duration—wasadopted by Congress in the AIA and limited to patents that arefiled under the new first-inventor-to-file system. This one-windowapproach has the advantage of avoiding a possible avalanche ofrequests for post-grant review, since the provision would only applyto patents as they are granted, and not immediately to all in-forcepatents. At the same time, Congress replaced inter partes reexamina-tion with a new inter partes review, or IPR. This approach has theadvantage of establishing a post-grant opposition procedure duringthe first window and making IPR look somewhat more like theformer inter partes reexamination procedure, albeit as improved bythe AIA, during the life of U.S. patents. At the time, this was referredto as the “great compromise” on post-issuance patent procedures.

In summary, after the effective date of the AIA post-grant provi-sions, there exist four post-issuance patent procedures:


Foreword

——————

6. Id. at 603–05.

xxxi

(1) Ex parte reexamination, implemented by the USPTO’s CentralReexamination Unit (CRU), applicable to all in-force patentswithout change from current practice.

(2) Inter partes review, implemented by the newly establishedPatent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and applicable to allpatents in force on or after September 16, 2012.

(3) Post-grant review, also implemented by the PTAB and capable ofbeing triggered only during the first nine months after grant ofpatents filed under the first-inventor-to-file procedures estab-lished by the AIA.

(4) Transitional Program for Covered Business Methods patents,likewise implemented by the PTAB and applicable to patentsdirected to “data processing or other operations used in thepractice, administration, or management of a financial productor service, except that the term does not include patents fortechnological inventions.”

Procedures (1) and (2) will be limited to art that constitutesprior patents and publications. Post-grant review will include allgrounds (except for best mode) on which a U.S. patent may beheld to be invalid, going beyond prior patents and publications. TheTransitional Program for Covered Business Methods has certainlimitations on the types of prior art applicable to first-to-inventpatents that can be raised during the proceedings and sunsets inthe year 2020.

In urging enactment of the AIA in the U.S. Senate, Senator PatrickJ. Leahy, the principal sponsor of the bill and Chairman of the SenateJudiciary Committee, stated:

The America Invents Act will keep America in its longstandingposition at the pinnacle of innovation. This bill will establish amore efficient and streamlined patent system that will improvepatent quality and limit unnecessary and counterproductive litiga-tion costs, while making sure no party ’s access to court is denied.

Similarly, the House of Representatives Committee Report notedthat:

The voices heard during the debate over changes to the patent lawhave . . . focused the Committee’s attention on the value ofharmonizing our system for granting patents with the best partsof other major patent systems throughout the industrializedworld for the benefit of U.S. patent holders; improving patent

xxxii


quality and providing a more efficient system for challengingpatents that should not have issued; and reducing unwarrantedlitigation costs and inconsistent damage awards.7

This treatise discusses in detail the three new post-issuance patentprocedures adopted by the AIA, with a major emphasis on the interpartes review. The post-grant review procedures will be not be avail-able for patents issued prior to about 2014, and the TransitionalProgram for Covered Business Methods will be applicable only topatents directed to specific subject matter other than a technologicalinvention used in a financial product or service. Accordingly, webelieve that petitions for inter partes review will greatly outnumberpetitions for the other types of review at least for the first severalyears of practice under the AIA.

The inter partes review proceedings will have been available tothird-party requesters since September 16, 2012, to challenge thevalidity of any patents in force on the basis of patents and printedpublications. IPR proceedings are contested proceedings that areadjudicated by the PTAB within twelve to eighteen months oncethe proceedings have been ordered. The threshold requirement forinstituting the proceedings is whether the petitioner is likely to suc-ceed in proving unpatentability of at least one patent claim. Theproceedings will lead to a final written decision after an oral hearingthat has an estoppel effect in litigation against the third-party chal-lenger who is unsuccessful in establishing the unpatentability of chal-lenged patent claims. The actions taken in the review will becomeeffectuated through the issuance of a review certificate. The PTABdecision is only appealable to the Federal Circuit. It is unclear whetherthe statutory estoppel will be vacated if the third-party requester issuccessful in the appeal. The rapidity of the process will encouragedistrict court judges in concurrent litigation proceedings to grant staysof the litigation pending the outcome of the inter partes review.

The new inter partes review proceedings under the America InventsAct addresses many of the concerns presented by the inter partesreexamination proceedings. The inter partes review must be filedbefore any declaratory judgment action filed by the petitioner or realparty in interest; or within one year of the petitioner or real party ininterest being sued for infringement on the patent; and in any eventno earlier than nine months after the issuance or reissuance of thepatent and no earlier than the termination of a post-grant reviewproceeding for the patent. The inter partes review proceedings will


Foreword

——————

7. H.R. REP. NO. 112-98, at 39–40.

xxxiii

begin at the PTAB and avoid the delays associated with reexamina-tions before the Central Reexamination Unit that occur prior to anappeal. Because the multiple years of delay associated with interpartes reexamination will be eliminated in inter partes review, courtsmay be more inclined to grant stays of the litigation. In inter partesreexamination the estoppel effect had no practical effect on con-current litigation, because it did not attach until issuance of thereexamination certificate. In IPR, however, the estoppel attaches uponissuance of the final written decision of the PTAB and that estoppelwill be effective for both civil actions and International TradeCommission proceedings. The estoppel will apply not only to therequester, but to the real party in interest. Also, because the thresholdto initiate inter partes review has been raised to a “reasonable like-lihood of prevailing” standard and patent owners will be permitted tofile preliminary responses setting forth reasons why no inter partesreview should be instituted based upon the failure of the petition tomeet any of the IPR requirements, it is expected that grant rate will belower. There will no longer be a prohibition against challengingpatents granted on applications filed prior to November 29, 1999.IPR proceedings may be terminated by settlement, although thePTAB may in its discretion proceed to final written decision.

A patent owner response once the proceedings are instituted mayinclude factual evidence and expert opinions. The patent owner willbe permitted to amend, cancel, and propose a reasonable number ofsubstitute claims. However, if such new or amended claims raise non-prior art issues such as enlarging the scope of the original claims,adding new matter, indefiniteness, etc., it remains to be seen whethersuch amendments will be entered and, if so, whether non–prior artunpatentability findings will be made by the PTAB.

This treatise guides readers through the process of successfullyprosecuting or defending a post-grant proceeding before the PTAB.The talented members of the Oblon patents post-grant team providethis treatise as a service to the firm’s clients and those who are avidreaders of the firm’s patentspostgrant.com blog.

Chapters 16 and 17 address post-grant review and the transitionalprogram for covered business method patents, respectively, in some-what less detail than the earlier chapters treat inter partes review. Asnoted above, post-grant review procedures will not be initiated until2014 or perhaps later, and experience gained in implementing IPRwill likely play a role in refining those for PGR. The transitionalprogram for covered business method patents is governed by many ofthe same rules as IPR and will apply to a relatively small subset ofissued patents.

xxxiv


The very real incentives of the U.S. patent system for the creation,disclosure, and use of cutting-edge technology have never beenmore apparent. The major challenge to the leading patent offices ofthe world is to keep pace with exponentially increasing workloads.The quality of granted patents should not be permitted to suffer as aresult of (1) increasing workloads or (2) the inevitable move to patentinventions in new pioneering areas. Major patent offices of the worldhave established some form of post-grant review of granted patents,and these procedures have worked well. The new inter partes reviewand post-grant review procedures established by AIA will permitindustrial and academic experts to participate in the ultimate deci-sion to confirm or not to confirm a granted patent. This will providethe recognized experts at the PTO with an entirely new and effectivecapability to ensure that only truly deserving inventions received theirconstitutional due. In turn, that will provide important assurancesto the public on the quality of U.S. patents granted in a system inwhich anything under the sun created by humans—and inventive—can be patented.

HON. GERALD MOSSINGHOFF

former Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks

STEPHEN KUNIN

former Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy


Foreword

xxxv

Acknowledgments

Lindsay Kile, Chris Ricciuti, Lisa Mandrusiak, Ruby Natnithithadha,Jessica Harrison, Alex Gasser, Andrew Beverina, Anne St. Martin,Soumya Panda and John Presper.

(Post-Grant, Rel. #9, 9/18) xxxvii

Post-Grant Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal ... · Deskbook on Internal...

Documents

Transcript of Post-Grant Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal ... · Deskbook on Internal...